Dec 2, 2012 1:00pm PST
the benghazi attack that left four americans dead. in the meantime, clare mccaskill came to the ambassador's defense. >> she had reviewed the dpeor foer going. >> on sunday shows and went well beyond the talking points, we have decimated al-qaeda, that was nowhere on the talking points, said things the attack was a result of a heinous and offensive video. said the security at our consulate and strong and significant. that is not in the talking points and frankly not supported by the record of what happened. >> the talking points came from the intelligence community. you don't hear one criticism of david petraeus. it was his shop that produced the talking points that susan rice talked about. is there a double standard here? it appears there is, very unfair one. >> gregg: last week rice met with members of the senate armed services committee to try to explain the situation. lindsay graham saying that ambassador rice did not help herself very much. >> heather: supporters of mohammed morsi staging a demonstration in washington, d.c. standing in front of the egyptian embassy armed with signs. o
Dec 27, 2012 10:00am PST
poorly ahead of the benghazi terror attack on 9/11 the state department told us last week they were all either gone or demoted. this is direct quote from spokeswoman victoria knew land. secretary clinton accepted eric boss equal's decision to resign as effective up immediately. the other three individuals have been relieved of their current duties. all four individuals have been placed on administrative leave pending further action. the "new york post" is reporting those folks are still on the state department payroll. eric boswell who they said resigned did not resign and all four will be back to work before too long. >> they just shifted the deck chairs and they want to make the american people believe that the state department has held people accountable for their lack of security and sending help to four brave americans. this is incredibly inept of the state department to think that it continue to fool the american public. pathetic. >> reporter: we've asked the state department about this and they have chosen so far not to clarify or deny any of it. keep in mind that right now, they
Dec 4, 2012 8:00am PST
to close down the cia annex in benghazi? >> reporter: it's worth contrasting the status of the consulate with that. while the consulate site has never been secured, fox news is told that the cia annex in benghazi was shuttered by september 12th less than 24 hours after the attack. all classified information was removed or pwurpbld. burned. the decision to close down the annex same at 5:15 local time when the annex took fire from two mortars. the process began the night before after the consulate was attacked in the evening hours. the initial stages of the agency's proscribed evacuation kicked in as a cautionary step. once it was clear they could not sustain their position that was wrapped up and they were able to get everything out, classified information, either moved or destroyed by about 7:00am local time. so the contrast is that within hours the cia was able to close down their operation, and that consulate has never been secured by any u.s. personnel, jon. jon: and it's almost three months later and still all of these questions. >> reporter: that's correct, uh-huh. jon: thank you, c
Dec 5, 2012 12:00pm PST
the decision to close the c.i.a. annex, the c.i.a. operation in benghazi, was made early morning hours of september 12 about eight or nine hours after the first wave of the attacks hit the night before. fox was told the c.i.a. site was sanitized so that all of the classified material, the classified equipment, was either destroyed or removed in a 12-hour window and we asked the lawmakers about this. they have not wanted to discuss it on camera but they are indicating this shows you where a lot of the focus was in those hours after the attack, very much on the annex and c.i.a. operation. >>trace: thank you, catherine, from capitol hill. the sea port strike that cost southern californian estimated $1 billion a day is over. workers at the ports of los angeles and long beach walked off the job a week ago and many cargo ships had to change course or simply line up until the ports re-open. for retailers this could not have come as a worse time because they rely on this sea port for a holiday good like clothing and if unture and electronics. both now have struck a deal. adam is like at the po
Dec 1, 2012 11:00am PST
happened in benghazi. why were requests for security turned down in this dangerous situation? but that's not a political conspiracy. that's one of the things that happen in life. >> all right, so what is interesting about this, peter, is that obviously the white house is saying al qaeda is on the run. al qaeda doesn't really sort of exist except in these small pop-up groups. then, so that's kind of the heart of the issue, which is you can't say al qaeda doesn't exist and all of a sudden have an attack by al qaeda. but are you suggesting that the intelligence community did not brief the ambassador deliberately in order to continue working their sources, their intelligence? >> the intelligence community, according to reports of how they brief the intelligence committees about this matter, took out from the unclassified talking points that susan rice used, references to a particular group called ansar al sharia. it's not links to al qaeda, more inspired by al qaeda in libya. they took the talking points out because they didn't want to tip this group off that they were basically looking at
Dec 13, 2012 11:00am PST
and the aftermath of the attacks on benghazi and libya that killed the ambassador there and several others. so she's come under fire because of the administration's response. we've seen many veteran senators very critical of her, including senators john mccain and lindsey graham. they will have much more on "the situation room" as this news is just coming out, what this means. let me get to the statement here, the statement from the white house. quote, i spoke to ambassador rice and accepted her decision to remove her name -- this is the president -- remove her name from consideration for secretary of state. it goes on. for two decades susan has proven to be an extraordinarily capable, patriotic, and passionate public servant. as my ambassador to the united nations, she plays a role in american's interest. she has secured international support in sanctions against korea and stood up for sudan and stood for the human rights of all people. it goes on to say that he's very grateful that she will continue to serve as ambassador to the united nations. it's been widely known that she has been the topic.
Dec 3, 2012 1:00pm PST
cannot nominate susan rice and not because of the benghazi scandal but because of her previous tenure at state where she doesn't have a good record and her u.n. record is not good. we don't have time to go through the particulars, but i think senator kerry would not only be the policy and political wiser choice. >> everything i've read about ambassador rice, she's imminently qualified for the job. >> you guys can continue this conversation at home right now. thanks to both of you for joining us. >>> the royal line of succession could soon be adding a new name. britain is buzz right now over the news the royal family is about to add another member. ll t in time for christmas? yeah, sure you can. great. where's your gift? uh... whew. [ male announcer ] break from the holiday stress. ship fedex express by december 22nd for christmas delivery. >>> catherine duchess of cambridge is pregnant. cnn's royal correspondent max foster is at the epicenter of the madness that's going on right now. the hospital where the duchess has been admitted with acute morning sickness. max, give us the latest.
Dec 6, 2012 8:00am PST
in benghazi. it was involved in attacks and planned attacks in europe. a lot of people forget they tried, actually in the 1990s to fly a plane in the eiffel tower much like what happened in new york on 9/11. so it's a very, virulent group that certainly threatens us and our allies. jenna: your expertise on this, peter, what do you think about our military intervention? we'll explain what that means in a moment. what do you think about us getting involved here? is this a good decision now with the tiling? what your thoughts? >> we need to recognize the threat and we need to prepare to do something but we need to really prepare the terrain. i'm very concerned that we're rushing into something that's very half-baked. the african force that is talked about is a little over 3300 men. which is a laughable amount when you're talking about an area the size of texas. it is not a serious force. so they need our help. they need some training but they're not adequate. so until there's really commitment to put a force in there, that can actually do something, we run the risk of jumping into something